BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 v. Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank

Shri Dinesh Mishra, C/o Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, ' Branch Manager, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSOARH. BIU^PUR SINGLEBENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA.J. W.P.rci No.4035of2011 PETITIONER Viswanath Sharma. RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Gramin Bante and others. Versus Shn Ann Kumar Pandey, counsel tortte pstitioner. Shri Pramod Verma, Sr. Advocate with Shri Virendra Vienna, counsel far liiB lespuildeiils Nu. 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (20/07/2012) Petitioner has chatlenged the impugned action of r^pondente-Bank under Section 13(2) Securitization and Reconsfruction of Financial tesets and Enforcement of Security trtferest Act, 2002 (for short Ihe SARFAES! Act, 2002?), however, in the retum filed by the respondents-Bank it has beai mentional that after issuance of notice under Sectfon 13(2) of the SARFAESi Act, 2002 the Bank has proceeded further and has issued auction notice under Section 13(4) ofttie SARFAESi Act, 2002 and said auctkan prooeeding is already comriet®. In the matter of United Bank of IniSia Vs. Satyewati Tontfon anct Offiers (2) reported in (2010) 8 SCC 110 the follovwng has been held in para 42.43 and 55:- "42. There is another reason why the impugned order shoutd be set aside. If Respondmt 1 had any tangible grievance the nottee issued under Section 13(4) or adion taken aaainst under Section 14, then she could have availed remedy by flling an apDltoation under Sectfon 17(1). The expression "anv in Section 17(1) is of wide import. tt takes w'rthin tts fold, not only person" ussd the borrower but atso the guarantor or any other peraon who may be affected by the action taken under Section 13(4) or Sedion 14, Both, the Tribunal and the Apoeliate Tribunal are emnowwed to pass interim ordere under Sections 17 and 18 and are required to decide the matter within a fixed time schedule. It is ttius evident the remedies availaMe to an aggrteved person under the SARFAESI Act are both expeditious and effective.

Unfortunatelv, the High Court overiooked the settled taw that the High Court witi ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remecty is avaitd?le to the aggrieved pereon and that this rute appBes with greater rtgour \ in malters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of c ••' ,._^J^i~i,S,;.^ -'^"~ fc -1-""":~'?-.< '•vsei^'^ f^. 1 1 ' I! j "^•^sy 'y / % ''!!>. tte"<'<'J'" ^ public money and the dues of bante and other institufions. !n our view, white dealing with the petitions invoh/ing challenge to the artion taken for recovery of the publte dues, efc. the High Court must keep in mind that ttie legtslations emcted by Parliament and State Legislatures for reoovery of such dues are a code unto themselves inasmuoh as they not onty contain recovery of the dues but a!so cwnprehensive procedure for envisage constjtution of quasi^udicial bodies for redressd of th® grievance of any aggrieved person. Therefore, in all sudi case®, the High Court must insist that before avaiiing remedy under Articte 226 of the Constitution, a pereon must exhaust tte remedles avaiiable under the relevant statute.

It is a mater of serious concern that despite repeated pronouncement of this Court, the Hiah Courts continue to ignore the availability of statutory remedies under the DRT Act and the SARFAES! Act and exereise lurisdfotton under Article 228 for passing ordere which have serious adverse impact on the righl of banks and other flnancial institutlons to recover their dues. We hope and trust that in future the Hiah Courts wilt exercise thdr discretion in such mattere with greater caution, care anri ciroumspection. " In view of the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and there (3) being alternatwe remedy of filing application uixier Section 17 off tie SARFAESI Act, 2002 before the jurisdictional Debts Reoovery Tribunal/the instant pettion is not maintainable. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. The (4) petitioner may avail the alternative remedy in accordance wBh tew. Sd/- Frashant kumar Mishra Judge